Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 30B |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.25 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $10.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.125 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.625Google AI Studio | $0.30DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00Google AI Studio | $1.10Phala |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 59.6% | 76% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86.4% | 83.5% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 20% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 51.2% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 51.7% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 75.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 22% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 18.8% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 65.9% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 953 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78.8% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 74% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Mar 25 2025 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 ProvsClaude Opus 5.5Muse GlimmervsClaude Opus 5.5Gemini 2.5 ProvsGPT-6 SolMuse GlimmervsGPT-6 SolGemini 2.5 ProvsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 2.5 ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 2.5 ProvsKimi K3Muse GlimmervsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Pro and Muse Glimmer are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a verified first-party API price: $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Glimmer. Gemini 2.5 Pro shipped 503 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is closed, while Muse Glimmer is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Gemini 2.5 Pro at 59.6%. On GPQA Diamond, Gemini 2.5 Pro leads at 86.4% vs Muse Glimmer at 83.5%.